The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about street lighting. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Ms Y complained the Council failed: to install additional street lighting near her home; to clear vegetation from an access road; and to provide support to her following criminal activity near her home.
This has led to Ms Y being worried about the problems in her area, particularly about burglary and groups of men gathering near her home.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Ms Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms Y contacted the Council about the problems in her area early 2022, requested additional street lighting to help prevent further instances of criminal activity.
Ms Y says she did not initially receive a response to these requests. She then made a complaint in March. The Council said it had not been aware of her earlier reports and apologised. It said it had asked the local police to increase the patrols in her area and for CCTV to be placed in the car park behind her home to act as a deterrent. It asked Ms Y to report any further problems to the police or to its Anti-social behaviour (ASB) team.
The Council’s complaint response in April also considered Ms Y’s request for further street lighting. It said it had no plans to add street lighting in the area as there were already lights. It then explained in a further response in May that the areas street lighting was placed at specific distances to provide light and the lighting in her area was within an acceptable distance. It therefore declined her request for additional lighting.
The Council’s response also said it had visited the area in May to consider whether the access road near Ms Y’s home needed clearance work after she had told it that it was overgrown, providing cover for crime. It said it had found the access road to be free from vegetation and as there was no obstruction would not carry out work. Ms Y was unhappy with this response and so approached us in August 2022.
Analysis The Council has considered and responded to ach of Ms Y’s requests for action to help prevent further criminal activity in the area. It has provided responses which consider relevant factors such as need or distances between lights. This consideration has included a site visit, where it was agreed this was necessary.
When the Council has felt action should be taken, it has done so, including asking local police to carry out additional patrols in the area. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the requests for assistance from Ms Y.
If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. As I have not seen evidence to show a likelihood of fault by the Council, there is not enough evidence to justify our investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint as the Council has properly considered the issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman